[_ Old Earth _] A Few Question For Evolutionists

[VaultZero4Me]

As Richard Dawkins said: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane."

I just got through his book today . I have to say, he exceeded my expectations. He is certainly a wonderful writer, and though I know his book wasn't to be a mantra, he really made some good points. I recommend it to anyone, theist or atheist.

 

[Free]

Also, only ~800 scientists disbelieve in common descent. The remaining millions, however, are unanimous in their support.

And the proof is...where?

Has Science as a whole ever run away with a theory that turned out to be wrong even though many scientists believed it? Could it be the bias of scientists that keeps them interpreting the data in a certain way?

Note also that those 800 come from all kinds of fields, like mathematics, physics, history, etc, but none come from the disciplines that focus on evolution itself. Funny how the experts are unanimous in their support for evolutionary theory, but the layman is not.

And really, what would mathematicians and physicists know about probabilities or the age of the universe?

As Richard Dawkins said: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane."

I sure hope there is some actual meat to his book and not just ad hominem attacks.

 

[Slevin]

And the proof is...where?

Again, misapplying terms like 'proof' into scientific endeavours is hardly showing that one has proper knowledge about science.

Has Science as a whole ever run away with a theory that turned out to be wrong even though many scientists believed it? Could it be the bias of scientists that keeps them interpreting the data in a certain way?

Why don't you bring up some examples and then we can discuss the self-correcting methodology of intersubjective verification? Even if you had some examples, how does that serve to invalidate Evolution?

Falsification invalidates an accepted scientific theory.

And really, what would mathematicians and physicists know about probabilities or the age of the universe?

Except that cosmology doesn't figure into the age of the universe. I dont know what you mean about probabilities.

 

[Free]

And the proof is...where?

Again, misapplying terms like 'proof' into scientific endeavours is hardly showing that one has proper knowledge about science.

Did you read what I wrote? I was asking for proof of the argument being made.

Has Science as a whole ever run away with a theory that turned out to be wrong even though many scientists believed it? Could it be the bias of scientists that keeps them interpreting the data in a certain way?

Why don't you bring up some examples and then we can discuss the self-correcting methodology of intersubjective verification? Even if you had some examples, how does that serve to invalidate Evolution?

I'm not a scientist, I was merely wondering if there were any examples. It wouldn't invalidate Evolution but it would make it plausible that that the ToE is another one of these runaway theories.

And really, what would mathematicians and physicists know about probabilities or the age of the universe?

Except that cosmology doesn't figure into the age of the universe. I dont know what you mean about probabilities.

Really? So the speed at which the planets are moving away from each other, if they are in fact doing so, or the distance between galaxies, etc., don't factor into the age of the universe? Is it all based on the ToE?

I'm sure you've heard all the arguments about probabilities -- that the chance of life happening on it's own, the chance of each mutation, etc., are so small as to be impossible.

I agree with Sartre (if I remember correctly) that the problem for naturalists/atheists is that there is something here instead of nothing.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

that the chance of life happening on it's own,

That is abiogenesis. Behes of the world would like you to get confused and lump it in with evolutionary law, but it isn't. Abiogenesis can pretty much be metaphysical as of now. Evolution is not molecules to man, and is the history of the progression of life. AFTER it started.

the chance of each mutation,

Mutations happen all the time. Do you mean "beneficial" mutations?

I'm not a scientist, I was merely wondering if there were any examples. It wouldn't invalidate Evolution but it would make it plausible that that the ToE is another one of these runaway theories.

Most examples of "science" ideas being wrong are back before science was science, based on observation.

Some now examples come in cosmology. That is mainly because the concepts are abstract that finding observational evidence can become harder. Also, distance plays a factor. So, the theories that get proved wrong, are the ones that are purely theoretical and based on math. Once the observational evidence comes in, the wrong models get dropped.

Evolution on the other hand has tons of data to support it. I think that it is probably one of the most evidence supported "theories" in science. Its funny how it is one of the most contested ones (in the US anyways).

You never see someone holding a sign saying "Black Holes are science fiction, not science fact!", or "Quantum Mechanics is a religion, not science!" yet they are less supported by direct evidence than evolution, and infinitely more abstract.

In fact, I think that Quantum Mechanics challenges the idea of an all powerful being way more than evolution.

 

[Slevin]

Did you read what I wrote? I was asking for proof of the argument being made.

I misread the context.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

His statement was based on US polls.

I'm not a scientist, I was merely wondering if there were any examples. It wouldn't invalidate Evolution but it would make it plausible that that the ToE is another one of these runaway theories.

It would only mean that scientists aren't infallible, which is an obvious statement. Evidence against the ToE would make it plausible that the ToE is invalid. Falsifiability makes it possible that Evolution is invalid.

Really? So the speed at which the planets are moving away from each other, if they are in fact doing so, or the distance between galaxies, etc., don't factor into the age of the universe? Is it all based on the ToE?

Oops, I meant that Evolution does not figure into the Age of the Universe.

I'm sure you've heard all the arguments about probabilities -- that the chance of life happening on it's own, the chance of each mutation, etc., are so small as to be impossible.

I'm not sure how one could calculate those without knowing all the variables. Nor is it valid. The chance that any specific number that is 10^10^54 digits long is 1 in 10^10^54....ridiculous odds, but it happens.

I agree with Sartre (if I remember correctly) that the problem for naturalists/atheists is that there is something here instead of nothing.

Nothing isn't anything, so that's a complete non-sequitur. Nothing doesn't exist, it's a concept created by humans.

 

[Possumburg]

Well as far as me whining I apologize if I come off that way because I am certainly not whining about anything. I thought this was just a healthy discussion.
And even though evolution may not be all about disproving the existence of God, I am in the middle of reading Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator and am struck by how he abandoned his faith based on evolutionary teaching. It's just like if I start a fire outside to burn some leaves, and my house ends up burning down as a result. I never meant to burn down the house, but burn it did. This is the problem with evolution. People are taught the most watered down version of it, and alot of times it leads to a rejection of faith, regardless of whether it was meant to or not. As for most of your arguments I agree with alot of them. Just not as proo(excuse me evidence) for "evolution" Most of it just demonstrates natural selection, or microevolution I guess it is called. But that doesn't account for fish becoming amphibians becoming reptiles becoming mammals and birds. As far as I know all mutations that are observed are a result of a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

 

[Slevin]

Most of it just demonstrates natural selection, or microevolution I guess it is called. But that doesn't account for fish becoming amphibians becoming reptiles becoming mammals and birds. As far as I know all mutations that are observed are a result of a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

Evolution is evolution. There is no real demarcation between "micro" and "macro".

 

[Possumburg]

Except for the fact that even evolution websites use the term.

 

[Guest]

As far as I know all mutations that are observed are a result of a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

That's also incorrect, most mutations don't happen due to a loss of genetic information, as a matter of fact, it's probably more often that it's a "re-arrangement" of genetic "information". Think about it this way: you have a long strand of DNA, at some point a mutation happens and instead of a TTAGGG you get a TATGGG. Although the change seems minor, the impacts could be dramatic!

 

[Possumburg]

It is still 2 Ts 1 A and 3 Gs. There are no new As Ts or Gs.

*edit* Never mind I see what your saying. Still seems highly improbable that all life came from a single ancestor,even given millions of years.

 

[Guest]

It is still 2 Ts 1 A and 3 Gs. There are no new As Ts or Gs.

*edit* Never mind I see what your saying. Still seems highly improbable that all life came from a single ancestor,even given millions of years.

It's a complex thought to believe it, I understand how one would find it hard to believe... again that's why the scientific method is never 100% correct. There is always room for error, and if evidence comes forth to show a different conclusion, then the evidence will be evaluated, proposed, debated and if it's credible it will be accepted then the conclusion will be revised. This is a very interesting mechanic that is only present in Science: self-correction. You have to note that ANY inconsistency that Christian debate about scientific methodology and conclusions comes not from Christian discovery of that inconsistency, but scientific debate over the validity of the results.

The way Christianity tries to disprove scientific findings is to look at the self-discovered possibilities of error (ones discovered by other scientists) and to point them out as the place where a miracle occurred. This is ALWAYS, but ALWAYS the case.

Unfortunately the scientific discoveries are not based on one single line of reasoning, such as Darwin's theory of evolution, but multiple scientific sources come to the conclusion that life was created from the "bottom-up" not from the "top-down". Nobody is arguing that there was no "designer", the point of science is to find HOW things came to be. Even if there was a designed, we would like to know how he did it. Religion on the other hand tells is: a miracle happened. That in itself is not a scientific answer, it really has nothing to do with science. Even if a miracle happened, there is always something within the miracle which we can scientifically explore

 

[jwu]

But that doesn't account for fish becoming amphibians becoming reptiles becoming mammals and birds.

Well...you have been shown a descendant of the intermediate stage between fish and amphibian.

The transition from reptile to mammal is also well documented. This image shows how a section of the skull (around the middle ear) changed over time, based on fossil finds.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... /jaws1.gif

As far as I know all mutations that are observed are a result of a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

What would a mutation that you'd deem to be a gain of information look like? How do you measure information in first instance? Do you refer to Shannon information, Kolmogorov/Chaitin information or which particular other branch of information theory?

 

[Barbarian]

I have seen some people lose their faith over evolution, but it happened to those raised as creationists from childhood, and came to believe that creationism was a Christian belief. When they grew up and realized that creationism could not possibly be true, they suffered a crisis of faith as a result.

I knew a number of such people when I was in graduate school; not all of them made it back. YE will have much to answer for.

 

[Possumburg]

I have seen some people lose their faith over evolution, but it happened to those raised as creationists from childhood, and came to believe that creationism was a Christian belief. When they grew up and realized that creationism could not possibly be true, they suffered a crisis of faith as a result.

I knew a number of such people when I was in graduate school; not all of them made it back. YE will have much to answer for.

So basically you think it is a sin for me to believe that the Bible is the word of God and that men are wrong about the origins of life? Funny because my Bible clearly states that ALL scripture comes from God.
2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
And that science can be false
1 Timothy 6:20
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
So I am afraid that you are wrong in stating that Bible believers will have to answer for people turning away from Jesus because of science. Find some scripture to back up YOUR statement.

 

[Dunamite]

Just a few questions I have always wondered about. If evolution is true (and I do NOT believe it is)...
First off Where did the first life come from? Even simple single-celled organisms are pretty complex to have just accidentally formed from whatever they are made of.
Where did sexual reproduction come from? How did the first animals with this ability know how to use it?
If a fish had a mutation that caused it to have lungs, how did it know to get out of the water and breath air? How did it miraculously come to have the muscles to expand and contract those lungs for that matter?
When did animals start eating food instead of living off of gases? What came first the mouth used to eat the food, or the stomach used to digest the food?
What came first the heart or the blood? Where did the blood vessels come from?

These are just a few of the many questions I have. Can ANY of them be answered? If not how can evolution be a "Fact"?
I believe God created us all the way we are. Just like the Bible tells us.

Lungs did not mutate. Lungs evolved. A mutation is dramatic. Evolution is a process that is constant and gradual.

Evolution and the Bible are not incompatible. There is lots of room for believing both. The Bible is many things, but it isn't a science book. It is God's revelation of himself to us. There is lots that we do not understand and God has deliberately withheld some facts from us.

The story of creation in the Bible was given to Moses by God. Moses was a simple man, certainly no scientist. If we did evolve then that was God's plan. In any event, Moses would not have grasped it nor would the people of his day. God's creation is beyond even our understanding today.

The more we look at the human genome we can see how remarkable life is. Believing in evolution does not take away, but adds to the marvelous complexity of God's creation.

I am personally ambivalent regarding evolution. I certainly think that scientific creationism is full of enough bad science to give Christians a bad name. Not all Christians are afraid of science, including evolution. The head of the Human Genome Project is a Christian who has written extensively on evolution and Christianity. Many scientists are practising Christians.

For me the verdict is still out. Evolution is still just a theory, but it has lots of evidence to support it. The principles which underly evolution are sound. Transformations are demonstrable and observable. Populations of animals do adapt and change. Species change and die out. New ones continue to be found. Change is the only constant.

Science cannot answer all of the questions about where life came from. Evolutionists cannot tell you, but they can tell you what they think happened and why they think it. They know more now than they did in the past. It is an incomplete picture, but so is the Bible.

If we are the same today as when God made us, I would be surprised. The body has too many mysteries for pat answers. Why would God give us a useless organ like an appendix which can become infected and kill us, but serves no purpose? Why would the DNA of humans and chimps be 98% the same? Why does a human fetus go through so many stages looking like various animal fetuses as it develops if we are so special? There are more questions than answers. We can't stop asking questions just because the Bible offers an explanation.

 

[DD_8630]

Also, only ~800 scientists disbelieve in common descent. The remaining millions, however, are unanimous in their support.

And the proof is...where?

The proof of this statistic? From the TalkOrigins site:

"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science."

Has Science as a whole ever run away with a theory that turned out to be wrong even though many scientists believed it? Could it be the bias of scientists that keeps them interpreting the data in a certain way?

Indeed it could. However, the sheer numbers precludes any en masse conspiracy theories: that almost half a million scientists in the relevant fields (not to mention those outside the Earth and life sciences) is simply a counter to the claim that "many scientists are turning away from evolution".

The fact remains that Creationists are in the vast, vast minority, and such claims are specious at best. And, indeed, as you correctly imply, reality is not dictated by the majority: Creationism may in fact turn out to be true. However, the evidence for evolutionary theory is so overwhelming that I stand by Dawkins' statement: you have to be either ignorant, stupid, or insane, to reject the conclusions thereof.

Note also that those 800 come from all kinds of fields, like mathematics, physics, history, etc, but none come from the disciplines that focus on evolution itself. Funny how the experts are unanimous in their support for evolutionary theory, but the layman is not.

And really, what would mathematicians and physicists know about probabilities or the age of the universe?

As a theoretical physicist myself, I can tell you that we are quite well versed in both areas. However, what does this have to do with evolution?

As Richard Dawkins said: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane."

I sure hope there is some actual meat to his book and not just ad hominem attacks.

Indeed it is. Note also that this is not an ad hominem: he does not dismiss anti-evolution / pro-creationism arguments simply because they are espoused by non-evolutionists. He is simply criticising non-evolutionists themselves.

The evidence for evolutionary theory is beyond overwhelming. So, therefore, you are either ignorant of such evidence, insane to the point of being dissasociated with reality, or stupid as to the conclusions that directly follow from such evidence.

 

[Slevin]

Except for the fact that even evolution websites use the term.

Yes, and you confuse the meaning of those terms.